The Crisis Unfolds at the UN

On Friday, October 11, 2025, the United Nations Security Council convened to address escalating military tensions between the United States and Venezuela following a series of controversial U.S. military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean. The meeting underscored deep divisions within the international community over the legality and necessity of Washington’s unilateral military actions against alleged drug trafficking boats operating off Venezuela’s coast.

The incident marks a critical moment in geopolitics, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power, the application of international law, and the principle of national sovereignty in an increasingly multipolar world. What began as an anti-narcotics operation has evolved into a potential flashpoint that threatens regional stability and challenges the post-World War II international order.

The Military Strikes: Context and Escalation

The U.S. has launched four attacks on the Caribbean region in recent weeks as part of what it says is a war on drugs. The U.S. president said 11 people were killed in the strike in “international waters.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the “lethal strike” as taking place in the “southern Caribbean” against “a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela.”

This is now the fourth strike off the coast of Venezuela in what the Trump administration insists are international waters. On Sept. 2, the military said it hit a boat, killing 11 on board who Trump claimed were members of Tren de Aragua. The Trump administration has framed these operations as a necessary component of its broader war on drugs, particularly targeting the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua, which it alleges is responsible for trafficking narcotics into the United States.

However, the US military carried out another strike on a boat operating in the Caribbean officials deemed to be a “narco-trafficking vessel” on Friday morning, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in a social media post. The strike killed all four people who were on board, Hegseth said.

The pattern of strikes represents a significant shift in U.S. military doctrine. Rather than relying solely on interdiction efforts or diplomatic pressure, the Trump administration has adopted a more aggressive posture, conducting extrajudicial military operations in international waters. This approach has drawn comparisons to unilateral interventionism and raised concerns about the precedent it sets for other nations’ use of military force.

Russia’s Condemnation: The “Cowboy Principle”

Russia’s position at the UN Security Council meeting crystallized international opposition to the strikes. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia delivered a pointed critique of U.S. actions, accusing Washington of operating according to a “cowboy principle of ‘shoot first'” without due process or investigation.

Nebenzia’s characterization was particularly damaging to U.S. credibility because it highlighted a fundamental contradiction in American rhetoric. While the Trump administration claims to operate within international law, the actual conduct of military operations—striking vessels in international waters with limited transparency, causing civilian casualties, and offering post-hoc justifications for the operations—mirrors the unilateral interventionism that the U.S. has historically condemned when employed by other nations.

The Russian ambassador argued that the strikes violated international law and human rights standards, noting that individuals aboard the targeted vessels were fired upon without trial or investigation. He underscored that subsequent claims that criminals were on board these vessels amounted to retroactive justifications rather than legitimate legal foundations for the military operations.

This statement carries particular weight coming from Russia, which has itself been accused of similar violations in Ukraine. Moscow’s willingness to defend Venezuela and criticize the U.S. reflects broader strategic competition between Washington and Moscow for influence in the Western Hemisphere, an area that the U.S. has traditionally dominated through the Monroe Doctrine and regional economic influence.

The International Response: Cracks in the Western Alliance

While Russia condemned the strikes outright, the response from Western nations revealed nuanced concerns about both the legal implications and the geopolitical consequences of U.S. actions. Notably, U.S. allies—including France, Greece, and Denmark—called for de-escalation, dialogue, and strict adherence to international law.

France’s position, articulated through deputy UN envoy Jay Dharmadhikari, was particularly significant. Paris emphasized that multilateral initiatives to combat trafficking and strengthen border controls should be pursued while respecting international law and human rights law. Importantly, France called for nations to “refrain from any unilateral armed action,” a clear rebuke of the U.S. approach.

Greece and Denmark also urged restraint and adherence to international legal frameworks, suggesting that even Washington’s closest European partners harbor concerns about the precedent being set by these military strikes. This fracturing of Western unity over fundamental questions of international law indicates that the Trump administration’s aggressive posture is generating resistance even among traditional allies.

Panama, a nation with direct interests in regional security and drug trafficking prevention, offered a more measured perspective. Deputy UN ambassador Ricardo Moscoso acknowledged “legitimate concerns about drug trafficking, piracy and other illicit activities in regional waters” but emphasized that “beyond military responses, it is possible to confront this scourge through coordinated and sustainable strategies.” Panama argued that transnational threats require “joint responses based on respect for international law and supported by a shared commitment to peace and stability in our hemisphere.”

This formulation represented a middle ground—accepting the reality of drug trafficking while rejecting unilateral military strikes as the appropriate response. It reflected the perspective of a nation that understands the challenges of regional drug trafficking but also recognizes the dangers of allowing military force to substitute for international cooperation and legal frameworks.

Venezuela’s Perspective: Anticipating Armed Aggression

Venezuela’s ambassador, Samuel Moncada, painted a picture of an existential threat to his nation. Citing the U.S. military buildup in the region and Washington’s “belligerent action and rhetoric,” Moncada stated that Venezuela was “facing a situation in which it is rational to anticipate that in the very short term an armed attack is to be perpetrated against Venezuela.”

This statement reflects the perspective of a nation that has witnessed decades of U.S. pressure, sanctions, and threats of intervention. From Venezuela’s standpoint, the current military strikes represent not merely anti-narcotics operations but rather the initial stages of a broader campaign aimed at destabilizing or overthrowing the Maduro government. The U.S. military buildup in the region, combined with the strikes themselves and inflammatory rhetoric from Trump administration officials, reinforces this perception.

Striking inside Venezuela would … toward Venezuela’s government. In recent weeks, the U.S. military struck at least three boats from Venezuela allegedly carrying narco-traffickers and drugs that could threaten Americans, President Donald Trump said on Truth Soci… The fact that U.S. officials have publicly discussed military strike options inside Venezuelan territory validates Caracas’s concerns that the current offshore operations may be merely a prelude to direct military intervention on Venezuelan soil.

The Legal Questions: International Law Under Pressure

A critical issue emerging from this crisis concerns the legal foundations for U.S. military action. International law provides limited justification for military strikes in international waters against civilian vessels, even those suspected of illegal activities. The relevant legal frameworks include the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which establishes rights and responsibilities of nations in international waters, and customary international law regarding the use of force.

Under UNCLOS, nations have the right to pursue vessels engaged in piracy or slave trading on the high seas, but drug trafficking is not explicitly listed as a permissible basis for hot pursuit or military strike. The U.S. argument relies instead on the principle of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, contending that drug trafficking constitutes a threat to national security justifying military response.

However, this interpretation stretches the traditional understanding of self-defense, which typically refers to armed attacks by state or state-like actors. Using military force against private actors engaged in criminal activity—even serious criminal activity like drug trafficking—raises questions about proportionality and the availability of alternative legal mechanisms.

The Democratic lawmakers’ concerns about the legality of these strikes and the expansion of presidential power reflect anxieties that the Trump administration’s unilateral interpretation of self-defense could set a dangerous precedent. If the U.S. can justify military strikes against drug trafficking vessels, what prevents other nations from justifying military strikes against vessels engaged in activities they deem threatening to national security?

The Broader Geopolitical Context

The Caribbean edges toward a Cold War–style standoff as Trump’s strike on Venezuela deepens the drug war and raises risks of regional escalation. The U.S.-Venezuela confrontation cannot be understood in isolation; it reflects broader geopolitical competition between the United States and Russia for influence in Latin America, particularly in the Caribbean region.

Russia’s vocal support for Venezuela and its criticism of U.S. military strikes serve multiple purposes: they position Moscow as a counterweight to U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, reinforce Venezuela’s perception that it has international backing against U.S. pressure, and underscore divisions within the international community regarding the legality of U.S. military operations.

China, while not explicitly mentioned in the immediate UN discussions, has significant economic interests in Venezuela through oil contracts and investments. Any military escalation that disrupts Venezuelan oil production or destabilizes the region could affect China’s strategic access to energy resources and its broader Latin American interests.

Singapore’s Strategic Position and Potential Impact

While Singapore is geographically distant from the U.S.-Venezuela confrontation, the city-state faces significant implications from this crisis. Understanding Singapore’s unique position requires examining its approach to international relations, its economic interests, and its security partnerships.

Singapore’s Foreign Policy Framework

The bilateral relations between the Republic of Singapore and the United States of America are positive. According to the U.S. Global Leadership Report, 77% of Singaporeans approved of U.S. leadership under the Obama Administration in 2010, and while this approval rating decreased slightly down to 75% in 2011, it nonetheless remains one of the highest ratings of the U.S. for any surveyed country in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite the close relationship between the two countries, on 1 April 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated that Singapore is not an ally of the U.S., will not conduct military alliances with any single power.

This carefully calibrated position—maintaining positive relations with the U.S. while refusing formal alliance commitments—defines Singapore’s approach to great power competition. Singapore has consistently emphasized the importance of international law, multilateralism, and the principles of the UN Charter, not because of ideological commitment but because Singapore’s survival as a small city-state depends on a stable, rules-based international order.

The U.S.-Venezuela crisis tests this commitment to international law and multilateralism. Singapore’s consistent emphasis on the importance of international law and respect for sovereignty creates tension with the Trump administration’s unilateral military strikes. From Singapore’s perspective, a world where powerful nations can strike other nations’ vessels in international waters without legal authorization or Security Council approval is a world where Singapore’s own security is diminished.

Trade and Economic Implications

If tensions intensify, trade routes, security cooperation, and foreign investments may all be affected. On the other hand, successful diplomacy could set a precedent for resolving disputes without resorting to military pressure.

Singapore’s economy depends fundamentally on international trade and access to global sea lanes. As one of the world’s largest transshipment hubs and a major financial center, Singapore has vital interests in maritime stability and the free flow of commerce. The Caribbean, while not a primary focus of Singapore’s trade, is part of the global maritime system that facilitates Singapore’s prosperity.

More significantly, the U.S.-Venezuela crisis signals potential instability in global maritime trade patterns. If military confrontation escalates in the Caribbean, it could affect energy prices, disrupt shipping routes, and create security concerns that ripple through the global economy. For an economy as integrated into global trade as Singapore’s, such disruptions carry tangible costs.

Additionally, Collectively, countries in Southeast Asia have been subject to the entire spectrum of tariff rates. This ranges from the baseline rate of 10% for Singapore (despite the U.S. trade surplus with the nation state) to some of the highest rates worldwide of 40%. As an emerging global manufacturing hub through which large amounts of trade flows, the varyin tariff environment affects Singapore’s position as a regional trade hub.

An escalation in U.S.-Venezuela tensions could contribute to broader global economic instability, potentially affecting the tariff policies and trade relationships that already concern Singapore. If military confrontation disrupts global energy markets or creates uncertainty in trade patterns, Singapore’s role as a manufacturing and trading hub could be adversely affected.

Security Cooperation with the United States

The United States cooperates with Singapore on the full range of security issues, to include border security, maritime security, military preparedness, counter proliferation, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. The access, basing, and overflight privileges granted by Singapore advance U.S. strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region.

Singapore’s security partnership with the U.S., while not formalized through a treaty alliance, represents one of Washington’s most valuable strategic relationships in Southeast Asia. However, this partnership is predicated on mutual respect for international law and Singapore’s sovereignty. The U.S. military’s use of strike capabilities in international waters raises uncomfortable questions for Singapore about the U.S. approach to international law.

If the Trump administration establishes a precedent of unilateral military strikes against vessels deemed threatening to U.S. national security, this could have implications for Singapore’s own maritime security concerns. The Strait of Malacca, one of the world’s most important shipping routes and a critical passageway for energy supplies destined for Asia, faces various security challenges including piracy and illegal fishing. If the U.S. model of unilateral military strikes becomes normalized, it could encourage other regional actors to adopt similar approaches, potentially disrupting the stability that Singapore depends upon.

Singapore’s Diplomatic Balancing Act

Singapore must navigate a delicate balance in responding to the U.S.-Venezuela crisis. The city-state has consistently advocated for multilateralism, international law, and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means. These principles put Singapore at odds with unilateral military strikes, regardless of their supposed justification.

However, Singapore also maintains strong security and economic relationships with the United States and has benefited from the U.S.-led international order that has underwritten its prosperity. Openly criticizing U.S. military operations could complicate these relationships.

Singapore’s approach will likely involve careful rhetorical positioning that emphasizes commitment to international law and multilateral solutions while maintaining the strategic partnership with the U.S. This might include private diplomatic engagement to encourage restraint while avoiding public statements that directly criticize American policy.

The UN Security Council meeting itself provides a template for Singapore’s likely stance. Countries such as France, Greece, and Denmark—all U.S. allies—managed to express concerns about international law violations while maintaining their broader partnerships with Washington. Singapore would likely adopt a similar posture, emphasizing the importance of adherence to international law and multilateral cooperation without directly confronting the Trump administration.

Implications for ASEAN and Regional Stability

Singapore’s position is further complicated by its role as a leading voice in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN has consistently advocated for multilateralism and respect for international law, particularly concerning disputes in the South China Sea where ASEAN nations themselves face pressure from powerful actors. An international order that permits unilateral military strikes undermines ASEAN’s advocacy for peaceful resolution of disputes and respect for international law.

Southeast Asia has become a key arena in the ongoing U.S.-China rivalry; regional countries are under growing pressure to choose between the two powers. For Singapore, this competition has provoked a debate on the extent of agency in the conduct of the city-state’s foreign policy. The U.S.-Venezuela crisis occurs against this backdrop of great power competition in Asia, where Singapore seeks to maintain strategic autonomy despite pressure to align with one power or another.

Singapore’s response to the U.S.-Venezuela tensions will inevitably influence its standing in ASEAN and its ability to advocate for a rules-based international order in Asian disputes. If Singapore is perceived as endorsing U.S. unilateralism in the Caribbean, this could undermine its credibility when advocating for multilateral solutions to Asian disputes.

The Broader Implications: A Crisis of International Order

The U.S.-Venezuela confrontation represents more than a bilateral dispute or a regional crisis. It signals a potential fundamental shift in how powerful nations interpret and apply international law, particularly regarding the use of military force.

For centuries, international law has attempted to constrain the use of military force by establishing clear principles and procedures for the legitimate use of force. The UN Charter, adopted in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II, represented a consensus that unlimited military power, exercised unilaterally by strong nations, had led to catastrophic wars. The Charter established that military force should be limited to situations of self-defense (against armed attack) or authorized by the Security Council.

The U.S. military strikes against Venezuelan vessels challenge this framework by arguing that narcotics trafficking constitutes a threat to national security sufficient to justify unilateral military action in international waters. If this argument is accepted, it creates a precedent whereby any nation can unilaterally decide that certain activities—whether drug trafficking, terrorism, piracy, or some other threat—justify military strikes against foreign vessels or even territory.

Such a precedent would fundamentally alter the international order. It would return the world to a system where military power determines the permissible scope of national action, rather than a system based on agreed-upon legal rules. This is precisely the kind of anarchic international order that Singapore, as a small state, depends on international law to mitigate.

Conclusion: A Moment of Choice for the International Community

The UN Security Council meeting of October 11, 2025, represents a critical moment in the evolution of international law and global order. The positions expressed—Russia’s outright condemnation, Western allies’ calls for restraint and adherence to international law, Venezuela’s assertion of its security concerns, and Panama’s emphasis on multilateral solutions—reflect fundamental disagreements about the nature of legitimate state action in a world with nuclear-armed superpowers and instantaneous global communications.

For Singapore and similar small states, the stakes of this crisis extend far beyond the Caribbean. The precedent being established regarding the use of military force, the application of international law, and the permissible scope of unilateral state action will shape the international order within which Singapore must survive and prosper.

Singapore’s interests lie in an international system based on clear legal rules, multilateral cooperation, and respect for the sovereignty of all states, regardless of size. The U.S.-Venezuela crisis tests whether such a system can survive the pressures of great power competition and the willingness of powerful nations to act unilaterally when they believe their interests are at stake.

The outcome of this confrontation—whether it escalates further, is resolved through diplomacy, or becomes a template for future unilateral military actions—will have implications extending far beyond the Western Hemisphere. For Singapore, France, and all small and medium-sized states that depend on international law to constrain powerful actors, the resolution of this crisis carries profound importance for the future international order.

U.S.-Venezuela Tensions: UN Standoff, International Law Concerns, and Singapore’s Strategic Position